Tuesday, 26 December 2006

What MGTO missed out

Watch Kramer vs Kramer or Jerry Maguire? The scenes where the two chaps get fired are pretty neat, eh? Here's a thought. Would an MBA grad be able to fire the two characters any differently?

Is there a fundamental disconnect from being an MBA grad and being a manager? Sure, an MBA (maybe) teaches us the quant skills and the hard facts to look out for when we are running a show. But then, doesn't it take a bit more to be a manager? Let's go back to the firing aspect - how would I, as an MBA grad, be able to tell a subordinate that he is going to lose his job, because of no fault of his? Should I take solace in the fact that it is a decision based on profitability?

A lot of companies go through crunch situations, and lay people off at one time or the other. Strangely, some people are willing to go back and work for the very same companies when times improve. I think that probably happens out of goodwill, more than anything else, of the managers. And I doubt one can learn how to create that goodwill at a b-school. Yeah, you could have courses which focus on how to improve one's personality, and how one should train oneself to react to situations; you could also have other influences during an MBA program, such as ideas of social responsibility. That, however, is one end of the spectrum. On the other end, an MBA might teach you how ensuring goodwill with fired employees reduces recruitment cost later. Somewhere between these two extremes is where MBA programs are creating the manager of today.

MGTO = Management of Organisations, a course we had in the fourth term, one of the few people-related courses we've had.

5 comments:

'jo said...

ibut interestingly many campany's first go in for a mass recruitment...like a manager needs an assistant..and assistants generates a requirement for his assistant....and then one fine day HR realizes that the head count has bloated off...and then start the mass slaughtering...classic example...intel...
yeah the goodwill is indeed a very interesting thing to look into...
but then wonder if recruitment requirement is justified or not at the first place....
i doubt if companies today have the roles and responsibilities defined properly for the post....

wonder if i am digressing...

chiranth said...

@jo

The fin guys here would probably call what you've described as an real option - the option to fire someone in case some expected business does not come through. The upside of this is that the you have people ramped up and ready to get slogging on the job from day one.

Arjun said...

Well, a necessity for a higher recruitment arises if the company is doing well or the industry itself is booming. But its also dependent on whether the company is following a vertical breakdown in project managment/development or if its a matrix system. That aside, what you are addressing is a situation when you have to fire a guy who has done no mistake. Three things, one - this situation would not have developed in a day (market/company rises or falls gradually). Two - the firing of person in question, I believe would also depend on how well he has placed himself politically in the company. (this should eventually teach him/her to do well in PR. Three - anybody who joins a rapid growth+attrition company is aware of this risk. The goodwill though is a moral obligation.

chiranth said...

@arjun
yep, true.

btw, which Arjun is this? I know four, and there are more I don't know.

arjun said...

Your cousin Dude !!